Everyone who buys the game should have access to the same content, regardless of which system they are using or whether they preordered from Gamestop.

Instead of paying companies to hold back content from rivals, MS and Sony should be putting that money into actually developing good games.

For the cost of the GTA4 exclusives alone, Microsoft could have funded an entire AAA title. Instead, they choose to spend that money to keep the content away from gamers who chose to buy the game for their rivals' hardware.

It is childish thinking. It not only hurts gamers, but the medium in general when companies are paying to restrict content, rather than create it.

The major "good" superpower spends a ton of money, kills innocent civilians left and right, lies about using torture, leaks classified information all the time and becomes more hated while failing at its primary goal.

You know what I hate? How hard driving bunnies and camels can be. Have you ever tried riding one? Gah, such a hassle. They always want to do their own thing, and never want to listen to what I tell them to do! That's why I invented...

Donkey Kong's first appearance is that of the aggressor- he kidnaps Jumpman's girlfriend Paula and for no discernable reason ascends a construction site to escape the pursuing beau. However, this plan is absurd- Donkey Kong is, after all, an ape, and his transposition from his natural habitat into an urban environment finds him unprepared for long term survival.

We'll return to this later- first, let us consider our terms: Evil, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "morally wrong or bad" and also "harmful; injurious."

Donkey Kong certainly falls into the latter definition, but the former is stickier- by what standard shall we judge morality? Morality can be extremely relative from culture to culture and, since Jumpman and DK are not only from distant lands but also different species, how can we judge the reigning morality of the situation? This consideration may perhaps be best saved for a later discussion- for the moment, let us assume that evil is, generally willful malevolence as it holds to some degree to a greater definition. If this is true, than certainly, Donkey Kong is evil.

How can we establish Donkey Kong's will? The relationship as demonstrated in the original Donkey Kong is provided no backstory- we have only Paula's cries for help on the cabinet and her loving response to Jumpman's rescue for indicators, from which we can only discern a fearsome ape- his motive is left unseen. We are forced to look forward, then, to Donkey Kong's later appearances.

"Donkey Kong Jr." depicts a very different situation than "Donkey Kong"- no longer is Donkey Kong the kidnapping aggressor but instead the hostage- he is kidnapped by Mario and his son must rescue him. The depiction is sympathic- certanily Mario here is committing the evil act- he is a willful invader and kidnapper, regardless of cause.

The environment here is the jungle- Jumpman has come to DK's natural habitat to take revenge. What then, of Donkey Kong's earlier presence in the city? Is DK, like King Kong or Mighty Joe Young, unwillfully taken from his natural habitat for show or sport? It seems likely enough, though it is unclear whether DK's tie is a relic of some sort of imprisonment, an artifact of the city taken by the ape. Perhaps it simply jungle fashion- Donkey Jr. wears a tie as well. Little of conclusion can thus be drawn, but a kidnapping seems likely.

The third entry in the original series, "Donkey Kong 3" confirms this suspicion. Here, Donkey Kong breaks into a greenhouse, forcing gardener Stanley to defend his flowers. Donkey Kong is apparently once again the aggressive party- but again, the absurdity of his residence is striking. He has nothing to gain from staying here- except, perhaps, a familiar habitat. Consider also that his tie, almost otherwise ubiquitous, is missing here. Is this how Donkey Kong arrived in the city? If the tie is in fact an artifact of his unseen stay in the city, it seems more likely to be that of a kidnapping, as DK's name was originally meant to indicate "Stupid Ape" to American audiences and one finds it difficult to imagine he would have chose the moniker for himself and had a custom tie made. Perhaps Stanley, looking for compensation for a damaged greenhouse, sees not a subdued beast but a lucrative opportunity and, dressing the ape for show, loses control- DK escapes into the bewildering environment of the city. These are only speculations, and obviously assume quite a bit. We shall simply say that, considering the majority of Donkey Kong's behavior, this seems more likely than an evil invading ape.

Is Donkey Kong evil? Good? The more one examines the evidence, the more confused the question becomes. What seems most likely is that we are dealing with an ape out of his natural environment, confused, bewildered and prone to rash and inadvisable action. His victimhood in "Donkey Kong Jr." is the thinking revenge of a man who takes an eye for an eye, not considering that DK's transgressions are those of a totally willful creature, one not prone to instinctual panic and kidnappings. This is a possibility in "Donkey Kong" and almost a certainty in "Donkey Kong 3."

Therefore let us gently conclude that, evidence considered, Donkey Kong's actions in the original trio of games were largely the result of a confused animal removed from his natural environment. Good? Evil? Difficult to say. He is at least, a victim.

Want to nominate comments? Send to tips any insightful or funny comments you read from other commenters. (Read: NOT YOURSELF). Be sure to include the post's URL, the commenter's page, the actual comment and your commenter page.